<!--quoteo(post=1674901:date=Apr 3 2008, 11:19 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 3 2008, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, so it's completely fair if one team is stacked so that it has good teamwork while the other is completely inept? Unless the learning curve in NS2 remains as lopsided as NS1's, you're going to have teamwork trumping individual skill a lot more often than the reverse.
Also, balancing for skill on either team isn't going to accomplish your objective of interest (fairness in ability to kill others or die to others) - this can't be achieved via a simple average, because the skilled players on either team will still dominate unskilled opponents, unless your model assumes the game is played in a tight, short, L-shaped corridor with teams starting on either end...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's idiotic. Are you even reading what I'm saying? <!--quoteo(post=1674889:date=Apr 2 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 2 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674889"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but you seem to be missing the point here. This (ranked servers) isn't as much about giving teams a roughly equal chance to win, but to give players a roughly equal chance to kill (other players) or die (to other players). You must understand that the majority of players in a server will be playing a First Person Shooter, not a Real Time Strategy. Obviously, assuming every player on the server has a similar twitch skill level, the smarter and more organised team will win. That's not only to be expected, but completely fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or do you not understand the concept of ranked servers based on twitch skill? It's quite simple, really. Skilled players play with skilled players, and unskilled players play with unskilled players. Of course it's fair if a team that's roughly equal (in terms of twitch skill) to the other team but superior in "teamwork" and organisation, to win rounds more often; they have something that the other team doesn't - in that regard, all supporters of teamwork <b>should</b> support this idea. If say, a team with weak teamwork keeps losing, despite getting a very good overall K:D ratio; surely they'll realise they're doing something wrong? This isn't a suggestion to make teams each have a roughly equal chance to win rounds - which is stupid, you might as well flip a coin then. But rather, it's to make games more fun for both teams by giving everyone a chance to kill members of the opponent team. And don't delude yourselves, NS <b>is</b> a game about killing.
<!--quoteo(post=1674461:date=Mar 27 2008, 04:53 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 27 2008, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Building on Stix' idea but going in a slightly different direction, Imagine this:
Each player has a "threat rating" which is calculated separately for each team. It starts at 0% for a new player and rises towards 100% as you become more skilled and rack up more wins. Method for data collection is open to improvement but would probably be primarily based on win %, for example threat rating = number of games won of your last 100 games, with players under 100 games considered to have lost the rest of them so they correctly start at 0.
Even though the game (either your own NS2 install, or a global stat tracker) knows this rating as a 0 to 100 number, players never see that -- what players see when looking at you on the scoreboard or when you join the server is a small graphic with a vertical color bar that is blue at the bottom and red at the top, and a small skulk icon on the left side and a small marine icon on the right side positioned higher or lower depending on what your threat rating is. So if you have a high alien threat rating but a low marine threat rating, the skulk will be near the top of the red area while the marine icon will be lower into the blue area. This gives players an approximate idea of your skill level while preventing anyone from obsessing over 1% movements in rating.
When a new game is starting, during the time between the first player joining a team and the actual start of the game all players can see a similar graphic giving the total average threat rating of each team. This will not stop you from starting an unbalanced game, but you'll at least get a heads up on it if you see the skulk icon hovering in the blue while the marine icon is high in the red 10 seconds before the game starts. If the unbalance is bad enough you can ask players to switch.
To illustrate, I have attached a simple mockup of my threat rating:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mmm, indicator. I really liked your post and would support going in that direction with this topic.
I think that is all I would really want from balancing skill on a server, just a vague indication of what I am getting myself into, first when I am choosing a server to play on and second when I choosing which side of the conflict I am playing on for that match.
I wouldn't want anything too rigid, because I most likely see myself playing on the same server with friends I have made through online gaming.
For the fresh out of the box, just downloaded the demo / game from Steam, new to the game, doesn't even know what or that NS1 was a HL1 mod: I think the the best indicator would be to do two things 1) Set the filter for servers to "Beginner" rated servers by default 2) In bold letters some encouraging words: "Highly Recommended That You Play A Beginner Server First For The 'Training Camp' Achievement Award"
Just like how players are swayed by seeing a score by their name, I think positive reinforcement of achievements can bolster the new player's experience and arm them with the knowledge of the indication of just how difficult (or not) a game's server and match is that they are getting into - after that, its totally up to them to make what they will of their own play experience.
...
Another thing I've been noticing in this thread, there seems to be a lot of obsession with kills or wins, I sincerely hope NS2 is just as fun to lose at times as it is to win and that I am never accused of "kill stealing" but rather thanked for helping assist someone. I get it, its just stat gathering, but I really don't want to feel like I am farming for stats when I play a game, but rather having a story - tragic or heroic - unfolding. Stats are just so boring, they should be tools, not the end-all-be-all of the experience. I have never been all that convinced that all gamers want to be cyber athletes looking for that 0.01% increase in their stats, at least not as the main goal of the experience.
Even something basic could do wonders compared to what we got in NS1. For instance if each server admin had the ability to classify thier server as hard, normal or easy. You would achive the same thing in the end as most players when they start woudl graviate to the easy games, and the experanced players would go for the hard games. If some newbie goes off to a hard game, he going to get his ass kicked, and then informed that he shoudl probably be playing in the easy servers. The only real problem might occur if we got some griefers that are experanced players that just play in the easy servers to kill a bunch of new players. Some more advanced traking of who is what skill level and making sure the teams are balanced is nice, but at least let the server admins classify thier server (even if it does nothing other then attrack the right kind of people).
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1674885:date=Apr 2 2008, 12:41 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 2 2008, 12:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674885"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I posted a topic that supported stat collection a long time ago, although it was just a thought exercise. Now, if this is actually being considered, in order to make it *work* (ignoring the likelihood of statistical validity and assuming you can actually implement ways to measure environmental factors that play into determining the "value" of kills/deaths) exactly how much data are we looking at here to collect per player, per game, per server, per day - and how practical would it be for this amount of data, after processing in a particular server, to be distributed between all the servers?
I was also making another post in the other topic but lost most of it - so I might as well just add the bit I'm interested in here: "I suspect that NS2 is going to be made in a way that makes individual excellence much more limited than in NS1, in favour of teamwork (even though I might not agree with this). In this case, you'll have a bunch of average K:D stats that won't be of very much use to you - whereas individual contributions to teamwork, which will make and break victories, will not be measurable."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good post. WRT to the first paragraph there are two routes to go: a.) Collect a ton of stats(a-la TF2) b.) Keep a threat-rating(<b>Cxwf</b>'s post) so while you may use a lot of data at the time to calculate the skill, ultimately a single number per steam_id is stored.
I'd say b is much more likely unless steam gives the option of collecting statistics for non-Valve games now.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1674906:date=Apr 3 2008, 07:56 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 3 2008, 07:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674906"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's idiotic. Are you even reading what I'm saying?
Or do you not understand the concept of ranked servers based on twitch skill? It's quite simple, really. Skilled players play with skilled players, and unskilled players play with unskilled players. Of course it's fair if a team that's roughly equal (in terms of twitch skill) to the other team but superior in "teamwork" and organisation, to win rounds more often; they have something that the other team doesn't - in that regard, all supporters of teamwork <b>should</b> support this idea. If say, a team with weak teamwork keeps losing, despite getting a very good overall K:D ratio; surely they'll realise they're doing something wrong? This isn't a suggestion to make teams each have a roughly equal chance to win rounds - which is stupid, you might as well flip a coin then. But rather, it's to make games more fun for both teams by giving everyone a chance to kill members of the opponent team. And don't delude yourselves, NS <b>is</b> a game about killing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems idiotic because you appear to lack reading comprehension. You can have really unfair and unfun games even when the "twitch skill" of the players is balanced across the teams in the server. This applies to both ranked servers (where a certain twitch skill level prevents lower-skilled players from joining) and to unranked servers (where somehow the teams were autobalanced).
Assuming there isn't a skill ceiling (so "twitch skill" maxes out somehow and you can't get better - like with aimbots maybe), you'll still have distributions of skilled players on either team. You will have better "high twitch skill" players and worse "high twitch skill" players on each team. Not only that, but there will be much bigger impacts from each player's non-twitch skills - like situational awareness, movement, and planning abilities. There will still be skill gaps so that the worst players will end up at the bottom of the scoreboard with pathetic K:D ratios, like Hellabean in the past, and they won't have fun.
Furthermore, if you consistently have players who understand how to work together stacking one team, while the other team contains players who couldn't stack, you will get unfair games. And in these situations the stacked team will always have the upper hand at killing the unstacked team's players (so no, they wouldn't have a high K:D ratio), because NS is not a deathmatch. Not only is it not a deathmatch, but there are also contributions to how the round progresses from tech and resource control - NS2 is likely going to be more complex in this aspect than NS1. This affects each player's ability to kill opponents. So assuming you will have isolated a group of players with equal twitch skills, this won't necessarily make the games fun for the players. Anybody who played in the old vet servers would know this..
Now, when you consider that NS2 is probably going to rely a lot more on teamwork than on individual skill, the issue that arises is that twitch skill may not be a very good predictor for balance in the majority of servers. You might have 3-year-olds that can't aim a mouse, but for the most part you'll have average people playing unbalanced games because their "twitch skill" is distributed fairly across a server.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1674935:date=Apr 3 2008, 09:58 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 3 2008, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good post. WRT to the first paragraph there are two routes to go: a.) Collect a ton of stats(a-la TF2) b.) Keep a threat-rating(<b>Cxwf</b>'s post) so while you may use a lot of data at the time to calculate the skill, ultimately a single number per steam_id is stored.
I'd say b is much more likely unless steam gives the option of collecting statistics for non-Valve games now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re:b, Cxwf's post I think it's really bad to try and rank threat level based on wins. Back with NS1, there were many low-skilled players who tagged along with the winning team whenever possible. Also, some high-skilled players looked for a challenge and consistently joined the losing team (yes, I know, very rare). Basing the threat level on %wins is more likely to show you who likes to stack teams than who is skilled.
But I do agree with a threat rating that's split into levels.. maybe a combination of the overall number of games played (experience) and the average K:D ratio for a particular team (marines or aliens). I think there may be a good way to combine these two variables to give a rough idea of a player's threat. It would only be rough, but better than nothing.
To address data logistics problems between servers, maybe a global system isn't even necessary. Maybe some info could be stored on a person's computer while another bit would vary from server to server. Let's say a really good player (based on client-side stats) joins a server that has never seen him. The server would consider the client-side stats initially for the threat level and then evaluate their validity for the particular server based on the player's performance in the first few games. As more information is collected, the server will have its own stats on the player which would then be more reliable than the client-side stats. The player's data could be purged if the steam_id does not return for more than a specified number of months.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1674943:date=Apr 3 2008, 10:36 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 3 2008, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Re:b, Cxwf's post I think it's really bad to try and rank threat level based on wins. Back with NS1, there were many low-skilled players who tagged along with the winning team whenever possible. Also, some high-skilled players looked for a challenge and consistently joined the losing team (yes, I know, very rare). Basing the threat level on %wins is more likely to show you who likes to stack teams than who is skilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> TBH I didn't realize Cxwf was for a win based system. <!--quoteo(post=1674943:date=Apr 3 2008, 10:36 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 3 2008, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I do agree with a threat rating that's split into levels.. maybe a combination of the overall number of games played (experience) and the average K:D ratio for a particular team (marines or aliens). I think there may be a good way to combine these two variables to give a rough idea of a player's threat. It would only be rough, but better than nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I was thinking too when I was referencing his post.
<!--quoteo(post=1674941:date=Apr 3 2008, 11:18 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 3 2008, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems idiotic because you appear to lack reading comprehension. You can have really unfair and unfun games even when the "twitch skill" of the players is balanced across the teams in the server. This applies to both ranked servers (where a certain twitch skill level prevents lower-skilled players from joining) and to unranked servers (where somehow the teams were autobalanced).
Assuming there isn't a skill ceiling (so "twitch skill" maxes out somehow and you can't get better - like with aimbots maybe), you'll still have distributions of skilled players on either team. You will have better "high twitch skill" players and worse "high twitch skill" players on each team. Not only that, but there will be much bigger impacts from each player's non-twitch skills - like situational awareness, movement, and planning abilities. There will still be skill gaps so that the worst players will end up at the bottom of the scoreboard with pathetic K:D ratios, like Hellabean in the past, and they won't have fun.
Furthermore, if you consistently have players who understand how to work together stacking one team, while the other team contains players who couldn't stack, you will get unfair games. And in these situations the stacked team will always have the upper hand at killing the unstacked team's players (so no, they wouldn't have a high K:D ratio), because NS is not a deathmatch. Not only is it not a deathmatch, but there are also contributions to how the round progresses from tech and resource control - NS2 is likely going to be more complex in this aspect than NS1. This affects each player's ability to kill opponents. So assuming you will have isolated a group of players with equal twitch skills, this won't necessarily make the games fun for the players. Anybody who played in the old vet servers would know this..
Now, when you consider that NS2 is probably going to rely a lot more on teamwork than on individual skill, the issue that arises is that twitch skill may not be a very good predictor for balance in the majority of servers. You might have 3-year-olds that can't aim a mouse, but for the most part you'll have average people playing unbalanced games because their "twitch skill" is distributed fairly across a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're of the opinion that because you <b>could</b> have difficulties with it, then you shouldn't even bother to try. How did you find yourself playing NS?
<!--quoteo(post=1675011:date=Apr 4 2008, 02:29 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 4 2008, 02:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675011"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you're of the opinion that because you <b>could</b> have difficulties with it, then you shouldn't even bother to try. How did you find yourself playing NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what he is trying to say is that the difficulties do not out weigh the benefits of having a system like that in place.
I fear that this stats system (especially ones that rank players better than others) will just turn into another mp_blockscripts debacle that divided the community apart.
And for what, a few people that cannot accept that the game will have stacking once and a while? The vocal minority who cannot take the time out to try out different communities until one that fits them?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675037:date=Apr 4 2008, 11:57 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 4 2008, 11:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think what he is trying to say is that the difficulties do not out weigh the benefits of having a system like that in place.
I fear that this stats system (especially ones that rank players better than others) will just turn into another mp_blockscripts debacle that divided the community apart.
And for what, a few people that cannot accept that the game will have stacking once and a while? The vocal minority who cannot take the time out to try out different communities until one that fits them?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was thinking more for the silent majority who quit the game because they couldn't find a good community.
<!--quoteo(post=1675052:date=Apr 4 2008, 02:40 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 4 2008, 02:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was thinking more for the silent majority who quit the game because they couldn't find a good community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? because when NS was in its prime it definitely was the most popular 3rd party mod and had significantly more players than TFC and even beat out DoD a few times. NS's retention rate was actually quite high.
Interesting comment indeed.
But again, ALL ranking systems get exploited, and because of these exploits they are broken no matter how complex or thought out. Best way to not get owned by skilled players is to play better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675054:date=Apr 4 2008, 02:44 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 4 2008, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But again, ALL ranking systems get exploited, and because of these exploits they are broken no matter how complex or thought out. Best way to not get owned by skilled players is to play better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Broken != useless. That's basically where we disagree, and I don't think that will change.
<!--quoteo(post=1675056:date=Apr 4 2008, 02:52 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 4 2008, 02:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Broken != useless. That's basically where we disagree, and I don't think that will change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
umm Broken != useless?
wow.
Yeah basically I really can't have a debate with someone of that logic.
Yeah basically I really can't have a debate with someone of that logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Every piece of software is "broken" by your logic. Just because a user can be malicious doesn't mean the software is useless.
No, there are programs that function perfectly fine. If a client-user breaks the code, thats on them, not the programmers. If you mean cheats, there are counter-measures for those as well.
A ranking system will just be broken to ALL users that use it. Because rank effects every single other player, the people who exploit the ranking system will effect those who are legitimately attempting to use it. This will cause a huge skew in the ranking system and they will NOT measure what they are intended to measure. Like I said, it is pointless to have a conversation with you about this further.
<!--quoteo(post=1674853:date=Apr 1 2008, 05:15 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 1 2008, 05:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again any sufficiently determined player can BS/workaround achievements, requirements, etc. in any game. This doesn't make stat systems invalid. Those players that spawn camp, whatever will get destroyed when they join a real game. Autobalance and matchmaking aren't substitutes for admins, they're just useful tools.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen. I hope people actually listened to that, especially that last sentence. You are right on the mark there. <!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro--> Perhaps a better solution to this whole problem is to BOTH give admins and players better tools AND do something that will encourage more servers to be regularly, actively administrated?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The best solution in my opinion is to create a reserve slot system similar to the plugins that we have seen in NS1. Reserve slots can be given out to favorable players as a reward for obeying the rules and making the game fun.
Relying on a stat system that will be broken, is NOT a good way to do this.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675011:date=Apr 4 2008, 02:29 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 4 2008, 02:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675011"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you're of the opinion that because you <b>could</b> have difficulties with it, then you shouldn't even bother to try. How did you find yourself playing NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, my opinion is that the usefulness of such a stat system will not be worth the effort and resources used to design, implement, and maintain it. This is without even considering the statistical validity of such a system. The idea is to assess cost:benefit before jumping in and trying to make changes to the way servers work.
Balancing twitch skill, even if you somehow manage to do this, does not necessarily provide fun games. If you do segregate servers (split the community in the process), you'll simply have the non-twitch skills being more significant - which they most likely already will be in NS2 - in deciding who kills who.
Alternatively, if you get some autobalance function that sorts players into teams of even "twitch skill", you'll still have non-uniform "twitch skill" skill distributions (could be Gaussian, could be left skewed, right skewed) on either team - which does not mean that individual players will have a fair chance to kill others. And this is without even considering that non-twitch skills have huge confounding effects on balance.
Finally, there's too much that is changing with NS2 that makes it really questionable to even discuss this kind of stat system without info about what will make NS2's rounds biased towards alien or marine victories. I think it's prudent to see how the game works first instead of thinking up a faulty way to balance NS1 - which is an old game that is pretty much dead.
<!--quoteo(post=1675082:date=Apr 4 2008, 08:31 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 4 2008, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best solution in my opinion is to create a reserve slot system similar to the plugins that we have seen in NS1. Reserve slots can be given out to favorable players as a reward for obeying the rules and making the game fun.
Relying on a stat system that will be broken, is NOT a good way to do this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675052:date=Apr 4 2008, 02:40 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 4 2008, 02:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was thinking more for the silent majority who quit the game because they couldn't find a good community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok. The silent majority who quit were newbs who could not adjust to the learning curve - it made the game inaccessible to many players. There was also mouse acceleration and sensitivity issues for alien lifeforms, but that's another story.. NS1 could have been much more successful if new players were catered to better. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that servers should be segregated.
Instead, for example, new players could be shown on-screen messages while playing (auto help). If they are in a server that is designated medium/advanced, they could be encouraged to seek a server designated for beginners. If they are doing poorly in beginner servers, perhaps a message could direct them to a tutorial about a particular class or life-form.
Triggers could be designed for auto help as well. For example, if a player dies far away from team-mates several times, auto help could suggest that the player try to cooperate with the team. If a player keeps getting killed by the same opponent or in the same area, perhaps a message could suggest a different approach including teamwork or attacking a different section of the map where other team-members are fighting.
--
A good community isn't defined by having people of equal skill playing on it. It actually requires both skilled and lesser-skilled players, but the important part is that players need to create a positive learning environment in the community. That includes not stacking teams to an extent where the same group of people keeps dominating all outsiders of that group by a huge margin. It's really up to the admins and the players to accomplish this.
<!--quoteo(post=1675082:date=Apr 5 2008, 01:31 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 5 2008, 01:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best solution in my opinion is to create a reserve slot system similar to the plugins that we have seen in NS1. Reserve slots can be given out to favorable players as a reward for obeying the rules and making the game fun.
Relying on a stat system that will be broken, is NOT a good way to do this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Interesting idea, you could have it so it works like the following:
All new players can access reserve slots, but admins have a quick and easy in-game interface that allows them to kick/ban griefers OR as a lesser measure of punishment, simply ban them from using the reserved slots so they have a harder time of getting on your server.
I think Sarisel has a better point, Firewater. With enough effort you could almost certainly create a stable stats system that handled most of the serious exceptions, but the system we discussed earlier (where stats could be used in conjunction with "easy, medium, and hard" icons on the server browser) seems like it would take far less effort to get working at a nominal level, and would perhaps even be more resilient.
I like the idea of players unlocking new servers, as it gives a feeling of accomplishment akin to leveling up in other games, but this time with real skill behind it, but as you both have mentioned, it would take more effort than an icon system, and it's possible that that effort would be better spent elsewhere. Both systems seem plausible to me, and would be good routes for UWE to consider.
As a player, I don't want to have to "unlock" servers, I feel that is ridiculous. What happens if no one is playing in servers that I have "earned"? What do I do then, not play the game I paid for? Sorry, but that system would be epic fail.
The only case where I see that being a problem would be at the end of NS2's lifecycle where most players would have unlocked everything, and most of the game would take place on intermediate servers anyway, which should be open to everyone regardless.
Besides that, the system would of course be optional (as I've mentioned before), so I don't see it being as catastrophic as you seem to.
Right its optional, thus gives an oppurtunity to segregate the community just like mp_blockscripts does.
It is not the developers responsibility to balance skill, only balance the game. A more plausible, cause effective alternative would be to allow server admins to label their server competitive, casual, or open, as well as provide a built in reserve slot method to allow those who follow the rules to be rewarded.
<!--quoteo(post=1675143:date=Apr 6 2008, 04:33 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 6 2008, 04:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675143"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a player, I don't want to have to "unlock" servers, I feel that is ridiculous. What happens if no one is playing in servers that I have "earned"? What do I do then, not play the game I paid for? Sorry, but that system would be epic fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then you play on the servers that are 'open' (i.e. have no matchmaking restrictions - read the whole thread).
<!--quoteo(post=1675187:date=Apr 6 2008, 04:08 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Apr 6 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675187"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you play on the servers that are 'open' (i.e. have no matchmaking restrictions - read the whole thread).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct, just like with blockscripts
But like blockscripts there were unintended social consequences that caused a split in the community.
Planning some Brave New World like system will do that 10x over.
<!--quoteo(post=1675190:date=Apr 6 2008, 09:13 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 6 2008, 09:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675190"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Correct, just like with blockscripts
But like blockscripts there were unintended social consequences that caused a split in the community.
Planning some Brave New World like system will do that 10x over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Do you honestly think the sort of players who want to play NS to a high level will not invest the time required to play without rank newbies ruining their enjoyment? As it stands, hardcore players are the ones who put in the most amount of hours - I think you'd be safe.
High-skill players have always had to use open and closed Clan servers to ward off newbies spoiling their fun, this just allows Beginner and Intermediates to do the same thing straight off the bat. I think most public servers would choose the 'open' version just to increase the amount of players coming through their doors. If the 'Advanced' level was something that could be achieved by everyone regardless of raw skill, you wouldn't see an elitist divide or any sort of ostracising of the 'Advanced' players. This is another reason why I think 'skill' should not come into the default matchmaking settings and tutorial milestones should be used instead.
<!--quoteo(post=1675198:date=Apr 6 2008, 04:42 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Apr 6 2008, 04:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675198"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you honestly think the sort of players who want to play NS to a high level will not invest the time required to play without rank newbies ruining their enjoyment? As it stands, hardcore players are the ones who put in the most amount of hours - I think you'd be safe.
High-skill players have always had to use open and closed Clan servers to ward off newbies spoiling their fun, this just allows Beginner and Intermediates to do the same thing straight off the bat. I think most public servers would choose the 'open' version just to increase the amount of players coming through their doors. If the 'Advanced' level was something that could be achieved by everyone regardless of raw skill, you wouldn't see an elitist divide or any sort of ostracising of the 'Advanced' players. This is another reason why I think 'skill' should not come into the default matchmaking settings and tutorial milestones should be used instead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am disputing the social reprocussions that existed on this forum between casuals and competitive players. I am talking about is the disputes on this forum that the optional mp_blockscripts command caused. Imagine a ranking system that would quantifiably isolate players based on a stats system that would be broken.
As always, summary at end of post for those with less patience!
While I have enjoyed RSlot style servers, I also think its pertinent to point out that mainstream games, ie BF, CoD, etc, do not rely on good admins to keep things in line. "Straight" FPS games, such as Halo, can make good use of "optimatching" and related technologies.
I shall address the Classic mode of NS, as Combat is fairly straightforward (kill or be killed, nuff said).
The "problem" with NS, is that it is NOT a straight FPS. Even back in the day, you had people who couldn't Fade to save their life, and so had to make do with being the team Gorge. Certainly I think its how the bulk of the players started out. You learned the alien side from there, making observations and then practicing your skills in the endgame when the marines were on the run.
Aliens largely pick their own skills, can be somewhat self sufficient, and can almost get away with using a team of rambos (lets assume everyone knows how to Fade and you have a token support player). No problems.
Marine side, there are two hurdles. First, you don't get to choose your weapons (generally), and secondly you need to be ready to make the switch from grunt to Comm. Comm, in a way, also gives you unique observations on the Aliens. I may go so far as to say that a Comm learns more about how to play Aliens than how to play Marines.
Now, people coming in from an FPS game are going to be fine with Aliens. People coming from an RTS are going to be relatively fine with being Comm. Problems exist when people try to make their class fit them rather than making themselves fit it.
You may be asking - what does this have to do with skill balancing? Firstly that it is hard, if not impossible, to create some sort of automated optimised matchup. Individual skill does not directly equate to team skill. Some players cant adjust to having to rely extensively on another player. A good gorge can be a lousy fade, a good comm a hopeless marine. If you're going to automate the process, you'd have to take in an insane number of variables to account for every possible statistic, and then factor in how that impacts on team balance. Not to mention how you expect to graph it all up - would anyone really want to be responsible for coding something that records each kill, the weapon used, the skill level of the opponent and the avg skill of the opposing team offset against your team's skill and your personal skill?
A player ranked high for shotgun skills is going to end up taking a beating in the ranks if his comm doesnt drop shotties - thats just one example. While optimatching COULD be done, it would be very hard to suggest HOW exactly it should be done. "Teams should be balanced" is open to an awful lot of interpretation, and an automated system would be quickly overloaded by having to account for (fade skill x gorge skill) x kills/weapon assuming ~ ping.. plus a separate system for (cumulative comm skills x avg weapon dropped on server) x kills/avg weapon assuming ~ meds and ping. Madness. For the Marines, a good team player relies on his Comm to keep him alive. A good Alien team relies on competent lerks and gorges to support their big hitters.
I do concede that if Combat was the only game, then yes you could simply take your total XP gained over number of games and compare with the Server's avg XP gained per game for a fair guesstimate of how badly you'll do (an oversimplication that is still flawed, as XP relies on kills and if everyone has the same skill then the kills will be roughly equal regardless of whether the entire server is CAL material or pubbers, but I digress) - but NS is not just about Combat, and Combat does not directly correlate to skills in Classic.
So, do we rely on Admins to do the job? Yes, and no. Admins are good to have, very good to have, but it requires a person giving up their time in order to police the server. In today's age, that is simply unreasonable. If you want to have a popular game, you have to be able to let it run on a server without having to shepherd the players. Admins will only appear in other games when you have severe cheating problems or serial griefers. Not for map changes, not for balance.
What does that leave? The players themselves. As Firewater and others have pointed out with their posts, the best servers had communities around them. Hamptons, Armslab, Lunixmonster, Tactical Gamer, OldF, and more. Now, not every player liked every server, but they had their regulars, their reserved slots, and patrons could be assured of a good time.
NS is a team game, it requires people to work together, and working together requires communication and knowledge of your fellow players' abilities. This makes community a necessity.
Furthermore, any player should know roughly how good or how bad they are, and should certainly have an understanding of GOOD CONDUCT. If you're an unstoppable fade player and you find matches too easy, then why not try another class? If you keep dominating a certain server, why not move on to another? If you're at the opposite end of the scale, have you considered practicing against bots? A newbie player back in the day would have learned very quickly that he was on the wrong server if he stumbled into Hamptons. Not that other players would be rude, but when you die 20 times straight then you should twig on to the fact that you're being outclassed.... Likewise, if you're dominating a server and spoiling the fun, you should be smart enough to know that its time to move on.
In a summary, how to balance skill on a server? Put it in the hands of the players. Let the community self regulate. Kickvotes, mute, and mapvotes can handle the most pressing issues, which means you need only call in admins to deal with serial griefers (stackers that rig votes, for one). Its the only sure solution, and is proven to work. Give your regular players reserved slots, encourage them to keep coming back, and people will naturally find their niche.
NS problem right now is likely due to the lack of server communities that encourage self-regulation. Nothing good comes of situations where players of vastly different skill are forced to play together, and what we need are more options for players to segregate themselves.
Comments
Also, balancing for skill on either team isn't going to accomplish your objective of interest (fairness in ability to kill others or die to others) - this can't be achieved via a simple average, because the skilled players on either team will still dominate unskilled opponents, unless your model assumes the game is played in a tight, short, L-shaped corridor with teams starting on either end...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's idiotic. Are you even reading what I'm saying?
<!--quoteo(post=1674889:date=Apr 2 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 2 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674889"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but you seem to be missing the point here. This (ranked servers) isn't as much about giving teams a roughly equal chance to win, but to give players a roughly equal chance to kill (other players) or die (to other players). You must understand that the majority of players in a server will be playing a First Person Shooter, not a Real Time Strategy. Obviously, assuming every player on the server has a similar twitch skill level, the smarter and more organised team will win. That's not only to be expected, but completely fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or do you not understand the concept of ranked servers based on twitch skill? It's quite simple, really. Skilled players play with skilled players, and unskilled players play with unskilled players.
Of course it's fair if a team that's roughly equal (in terms of twitch skill) to the other team but superior in "teamwork" and organisation, to win rounds more often; they have something that the other team doesn't - in that regard, all supporters of teamwork <b>should</b> support this idea. If say, a team with weak teamwork keeps losing, despite getting a very good overall K:D ratio; surely they'll realise they're doing something wrong?
This isn't a suggestion to make teams each have a roughly equal chance to win rounds - which is stupid, you might as well flip a coin then. But rather, it's to make games more fun for both teams by giving everyone a chance to kill members of the opponent team. And don't delude yourselves, NS <b>is</b> a game about killing.
Each player has a "threat rating" which is calculated separately for each team. It starts at 0% for a new player and rises towards 100% as you become more skilled and rack up more wins. Method for data collection is open to improvement but would probably be primarily based on win %, for example threat rating = number of games won of your last 100 games, with players under 100 games considered to have lost the rest of them so they correctly start at 0.
Even though the game (either your own NS2 install, or a global stat tracker) knows this rating as a 0 to 100 number, players never see that -- what players see when looking at you on the scoreboard or when you join the server is a small graphic with a vertical color bar that is blue at the bottom and red at the top, and a small skulk icon on the left side and a small marine icon on the right side positioned higher or lower depending on what your threat rating is. So if you have a high alien threat rating but a low marine threat rating, the skulk will be near the top of the red area while the marine icon will be lower into the blue area. This gives players an approximate idea of your skill level while preventing anyone from obsessing over 1% movements in rating.
When a new game is starting, during the time between the first player joining a team and the actual start of the game all players can see a similar graphic giving the total average threat rating of each team. This will not stop you from starting an unbalanced game, but you'll at least get a heads up on it if you see the skulk icon hovering in the blue while the marine icon is high in the red 10 seconds before the game starts. If the unbalance is bad enough you can ask players to switch.
To illustrate, I have attached a simple mockup of my threat rating:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mmm, indicator. I really liked your post and would support going in that direction with this topic.
I think that is all I would really want from balancing skill on a server, just a vague indication of what I am getting myself into, first when I am choosing a server to play on and second when I choosing which side of the conflict I am playing on for that match.
I wouldn't want anything too rigid, because I most likely see myself playing on the same server with friends I have made through online gaming.
For the fresh out of the box, just downloaded the demo / game from Steam, new to the game, doesn't even know what or that NS1 was a HL1 mod: I think the the best indicator would be to do two things
1) Set the filter for servers to "Beginner" rated servers by default
2) In bold letters some encouraging words: "Highly Recommended That You Play A Beginner Server First For The 'Training Camp' Achievement Award"
Just like how players are swayed by seeing a score by their name, I think positive reinforcement of achievements can bolster the new player's experience and arm them with the knowledge of the indication of just how difficult (or not) a game's server and match is that they are getting into - after that, its totally up to them to make what they will of their own play experience.
...
Another thing I've been noticing in this thread, there seems to be a lot of obsession with kills or wins, I sincerely hope NS2 is just as fun to lose at times as it is to win and that I am never accused of "kill stealing" but rather thanked for helping assist someone. I get it, its just stat gathering, but I really don't want to feel like I am farming for stats when I play a game, but rather having a story - tragic or heroic - unfolding. Stats are just so boring, they should be tools, not the end-all-be-all of the experience. I have never been all that convinced that all gamers want to be cyber athletes looking for that 0.01% increase in their stats, at least not as the main goal of the experience.
I was also making another post in the other topic but lost most of it - so I might as well just add the bit I'm interested in here:
"I suspect that NS2 is going to be made in a way that makes individual excellence much more limited than in NS1, in favour of teamwork (even though I might not agree with this). In this case, you'll have a bunch of average K:D stats that won't be of very much use to you - whereas individual contributions to teamwork, which will make and break victories, will not be measurable."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post. WRT to the first paragraph there are two routes to go:
a.) Collect a ton of stats(a-la TF2)
b.) Keep a threat-rating(<b>Cxwf</b>'s post) so while you may use a lot of data at the time to calculate the skill, ultimately a single number per steam_id is stored.
I'd say b is much more likely unless steam gives the option of collecting statistics for non-Valve games now.
Or do you not understand the concept of ranked servers based on twitch skill? It's quite simple, really. Skilled players play with skilled players, and unskilled players play with unskilled players.
Of course it's fair if a team that's roughly equal (in terms of twitch skill) to the other team but superior in "teamwork" and organisation, to win rounds more often; they have something that the other team doesn't - in that regard, all supporters of teamwork <b>should</b> support this idea. If say, a team with weak teamwork keeps losing, despite getting a very good overall K:D ratio; surely they'll realise they're doing something wrong?
This isn't a suggestion to make teams each have a roughly equal chance to win rounds - which is stupid, you might as well flip a coin then. But rather, it's to make games more fun for both teams by giving everyone a chance to kill members of the opponent team. And don't delude yourselves, NS <b>is</b> a game about killing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems idiotic because you appear to lack reading comprehension. You can have really unfair and unfun games even when the "twitch skill" of the players is balanced across the teams in the server. This applies to both ranked servers (where a certain twitch skill level prevents lower-skilled players from joining) and to unranked servers (where somehow the teams were autobalanced).
Assuming there isn't a skill ceiling (so "twitch skill" maxes out somehow and you can't get better - like with aimbots maybe), you'll still have distributions of skilled players on either team. You will have better "high twitch skill" players and worse "high twitch skill" players on each team. Not only that, but there will be much bigger impacts from each player's non-twitch skills - like situational awareness, movement, and planning abilities. There will still be skill gaps so that the worst players will end up at the bottom of the scoreboard with pathetic K:D ratios, like Hellabean in the past, and they won't have fun.
Furthermore, if you consistently have players who understand how to work together stacking one team, while the other team contains players who couldn't stack, you will get unfair games. And in these situations the stacked team will always have the upper hand at killing the unstacked team's players (so no, they wouldn't have a high K:D ratio), because NS is not a deathmatch. Not only is it not a deathmatch, but there are also contributions to how the round progresses from tech and resource control - NS2 is likely going to be more complex in this aspect than NS1. This affects each player's ability to kill opponents. So assuming you will have isolated a group of players with equal twitch skills, this won't necessarily make the games fun for the players. Anybody who played in the old vet servers would know this..
Now, when you consider that NS2 is probably going to rely a lot more on teamwork than on individual skill, the issue that arises is that twitch skill may not be a very good predictor for balance in the majority of servers. You might have 3-year-olds that can't aim a mouse, but for the most part you'll have average people playing unbalanced games because their "twitch skill" is distributed fairly across a server.
a.) Collect a ton of stats(a-la TF2)
b.) Keep a threat-rating(<b>Cxwf</b>'s post) so while you may use a lot of data at the time to calculate the skill, ultimately a single number per steam_id is stored.
I'd say b is much more likely unless steam gives the option of collecting statistics for non-Valve games now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re:b, Cxwf's post
I think it's really bad to try and rank threat level based on wins. Back with NS1, there were many low-skilled players who tagged along with the winning team whenever possible. Also, some high-skilled players looked for a challenge and consistently joined the losing team (yes, I know, very rare). Basing the threat level on %wins is more likely to show you who likes to stack teams than who is skilled.
But I do agree with a threat rating that's split into levels.. maybe a combination of the overall number of games played (experience) and the average K:D ratio for a particular team (marines or aliens). I think there may be a good way to combine these two variables to give a rough idea of a player's threat. It would only be rough, but better than nothing.
To address data logistics problems between servers, maybe a global system isn't even necessary. Maybe some info could be stored on a person's computer while another bit would vary from server to server. Let's say a really good player (based on client-side stats) joins a server that has never seen him. The server would consider the client-side stats initially for the threat level and then evaluate their validity for the particular server based on the player's performance in the first few games. As more information is collected, the server will have its own stats on the player which would then be more reliable than the client-side stats. The player's data could be purged if the steam_id does not return for more than a specified number of months.
I think it's really bad to try and rank threat level based on wins. Back with NS1, there were many low-skilled players who tagged along with the winning team whenever possible. Also, some high-skilled players looked for a challenge and consistently joined the losing team (yes, I know, very rare). Basing the threat level on %wins is more likely to show you who likes to stack teams than who is skilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TBH I didn't realize Cxwf was for a win based system.
<!--quoteo(post=1674943:date=Apr 3 2008, 10:36 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 3 2008, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I do agree with a threat rating that's split into levels.. maybe a combination of the overall number of games played (experience) and the average K:D ratio for a particular team (marines or aliens). I think there may be a good way to combine these two variables to give a rough idea of a player's threat. It would only be rough, but better than nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I was thinking too when I was referencing his post.
Assuming there isn't a skill ceiling (so "twitch skill" maxes out somehow and you can't get better - like with aimbots maybe), you'll still have distributions of skilled players on either team. You will have better "high twitch skill" players and worse "high twitch skill" players on each team. Not only that, but there will be much bigger impacts from each player's non-twitch skills - like situational awareness, movement, and planning abilities. There will still be skill gaps so that the worst players will end up at the bottom of the scoreboard with pathetic K:D ratios, like Hellabean in the past, and they won't have fun.
Furthermore, if you consistently have players who understand how to work together stacking one team, while the other team contains players who couldn't stack, you will get unfair games. And in these situations the stacked team will always have the upper hand at killing the unstacked team's players (so no, they wouldn't have a high K:D ratio), because NS is not a deathmatch. Not only is it not a deathmatch, but there are also contributions to how the round progresses from tech and resource control - NS2 is likely going to be more complex in this aspect than NS1. This affects each player's ability to kill opponents. So assuming you will have isolated a group of players with equal twitch skills, this won't necessarily make the games fun for the players. Anybody who played in the old vet servers would know this..
Now, when you consider that NS2 is probably going to rely a lot more on teamwork than on individual skill, the issue that arises is that twitch skill may not be a very good predictor for balance in the majority of servers. You might have 3-year-olds that can't aim a mouse, but for the most part you'll have average people playing unbalanced games because their "twitch skill" is distributed fairly across a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're of the opinion that because you <b>could</b> have difficulties with it, then you shouldn't even bother to try.
How did you find yourself playing NS?
How did you find yourself playing NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what he is trying to say is that the difficulties do not out weigh the benefits of having a system like that in place.
I fear that this stats system (especially ones that rank players better than others) will just turn into another mp_blockscripts debacle that divided the community apart.
And for what, a few people that cannot accept that the game will have stacking once and a while? The vocal minority who cannot take the time out to try out different communities until one that fits them?
I fear that this stats system (especially ones that rank players better than others) will just turn into another mp_blockscripts debacle that divided the community apart.
And for what, a few people that cannot accept that the game will have stacking once and a while? The vocal minority who cannot take the time out to try out different communities until one that fits them?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was thinking more for the silent majority who quit the game because they couldn't find a good community.
Really? because when NS was in its prime it definitely was the most popular 3rd party mod and had significantly more players than TFC and even beat out DoD a few times. NS's retention rate was actually quite high.
Interesting comment indeed.
But again, ALL ranking systems get exploited, and because of these exploits they are broken no matter how complex or thought out. Best way to not get owned by skilled players is to play better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Broken != useless. That's basically where we disagree, and I don't think that will change.
umm Broken != useless?
wow.
Yeah basically I really can't have a debate with someone of that logic.
wow.
Yeah basically I really can't have a debate with someone of that logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every piece of software is "broken" by your logic. Just because a user can be malicious doesn't mean the software is useless.
A ranking system will just be broken to ALL users that use it. Because rank effects every single other player, the people who exploit the ranking system will effect those who are legitimately attempting to use it. This will cause a huge skew in the ranking system and they will NOT measure what they are intended to measure. Like I said, it is pointless to have a conversation with you about this further.
Amen. I hope people actually listened to that, especially that last sentence. You are right on the mark there.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->
Perhaps a better solution to this whole problem is to BOTH give admins and players better tools AND do something that will encourage more servers to be regularly, actively administrated?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Relying on a stat system that will be broken, is NOT a good way to do this.
How did you find yourself playing NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, my opinion is that the usefulness of such a stat system will not be worth the effort and resources used to design, implement, and maintain it. This is without even considering the statistical validity of such a system. The idea is to assess cost:benefit before jumping in and trying to make changes to the way servers work.
Balancing twitch skill, even if you somehow manage to do this, does not necessarily provide fun games. If you do segregate servers (split the community in the process), you'll simply have the non-twitch skills being more significant - which they most likely already will be in NS2 - in deciding who kills who.
Alternatively, if you get some autobalance function that sorts players into teams of even "twitch skill", you'll still have non-uniform "twitch skill" skill distributions (could be Gaussian, could be left skewed, right skewed) on either team - which does not mean that individual players will have a fair chance to kill others. And this is without even considering that non-twitch skills have huge confounding effects on balance.
Finally, there's too much that is changing with NS2 that makes it really questionable to even discuss this kind of stat system without info about what will make NS2's rounds biased towards alien or marine victories. I think it's prudent to see how the game works first instead of thinking up a faulty way to balance NS1 - which is an old game that is pretty much dead.
<!--quoteo(post=1675082:date=Apr 4 2008, 08:31 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 4 2008, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best solution in my opinion is to create a reserve slot system similar to the plugins that we have seen in NS1. Reserve slots can be given out to favorable players as a reward for obeying the rules and making the game fun.
Relying on a stat system that will be broken, is NOT a good way to do this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok. The silent majority who quit were newbs who could not adjust to the learning curve - it made the game inaccessible to many players. There was also mouse acceleration and sensitivity issues for alien lifeforms, but that's another story.. NS1 could have been much more successful if new players were catered to better. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that servers should be segregated.
Instead, for example, new players could be shown on-screen messages while playing (auto help). If they are in a server that is designated medium/advanced, they could be encouraged to seek a server designated for beginners. If they are doing poorly in beginner servers, perhaps a message could direct them to a tutorial about a particular class or life-form.
Triggers could be designed for auto help as well. For example, if a player dies far away from team-mates several times, auto help could suggest that the player try to cooperate with the team. If a player keeps getting killed by the same opponent or in the same area, perhaps a message could suggest a different approach including teamwork or attacking a different section of the map where other team-members are fighting.
--
A good community isn't defined by having people of equal skill playing on it. It actually requires both skilled and lesser-skilled players, but the important part is that players need to create a positive learning environment in the community. That includes not stacking teams to an extent where the same group of people keeps dominating all outsiders of that group by a huge margin. It's really up to the admins and the players to accomplish this.
Relying on a stat system that will be broken, is NOT a good way to do this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Interesting idea, you could have it so it works like the following:
All new players can access reserve slots, but admins have a quick and easy in-game interface that allows them to kick/ban griefers OR as a lesser measure of punishment, simply ban them from using the reserved slots so they have a harder time of getting on your server.
I like the idea of players unlocking new servers, as it gives a feeling of accomplishment akin to leveling up in other games, but this time with real skill behind it, but as you both have mentioned, it would take more effort than an icon system, and it's possible that that effort would be better spent elsewhere. Both systems seem plausible to me, and would be good routes for UWE to consider.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103976" target="_blank">Less Elitist Gameplay</a>
Besides that, the system would of course be optional (as I've mentioned before), so I don't see it being as catastrophic as you seem to.
It is not the developers responsibility to balance skill, only balance the game. A more plausible, cause effective alternative would be to allow server admins to label their server competitive, casual, or open, as well as provide a built in reserve slot method to allow those who follow the rules to be rewarded.
Correct, just like with blockscripts
But like blockscripts there were unintended social consequences that caused a split in the community.
Planning some Brave New World like system will do that 10x over.
But like blockscripts there were unintended social consequences that caused a split in the community.
Planning some Brave New World like system will do that 10x over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Do you honestly think the sort of players who want to play NS to a high level will not invest the time required to play without rank newbies ruining their enjoyment? As it stands, hardcore players are the ones who put in the most amount of hours - I think you'd be safe.
High-skill players have always had to use open and closed Clan servers to ward off newbies spoiling their fun, this just allows Beginner and Intermediates to do the same thing straight off the bat. I think most public servers would choose the 'open' version just to increase the amount of players coming through their doors. If the 'Advanced' level was something that could be achieved by everyone regardless of raw skill, you wouldn't see an elitist divide or any sort of ostracising of the 'Advanced' players. This is another reason why I think 'skill' should not come into the default matchmaking settings and tutorial milestones should be used instead.
High-skill players have always had to use open and closed Clan servers to ward off newbies spoiling their fun, this just allows Beginner and Intermediates to do the same thing straight off the bat. I think most public servers would choose the 'open' version just to increase the amount of players coming through their doors. If the 'Advanced' level was something that could be achieved by everyone regardless of raw skill, you wouldn't see an elitist divide or any sort of ostracising of the 'Advanced' players. This is another reason why I think 'skill' should not come into the default matchmaking settings and tutorial milestones should be used instead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am disputing the social reprocussions that existed on this forum between casuals and competitive players. I am talking about is the disputes on this forum that the optional mp_blockscripts command caused. Imagine a ranking system that would quantifiably isolate players based on a stats system that would be broken.
While I have enjoyed RSlot style servers, I also think its pertinent to point out that mainstream games, ie BF, CoD, etc, do not rely on good admins to keep things in line. "Straight" FPS games, such as Halo, can make good use of "optimatching" and related technologies.
I shall address the Classic mode of NS, as Combat is fairly straightforward (kill or be killed, nuff said).
The "problem" with NS, is that it is NOT a straight FPS. Even back in the day, you had people who couldn't Fade to save their life, and so had to make do with being the team Gorge. Certainly I think its how the bulk of the players started out. You learned the alien side from there, making observations and then practicing your skills in the endgame when the marines were on the run.
Aliens largely pick their own skills, can be somewhat self sufficient, and can almost get away with using a team of rambos (lets assume everyone knows how to Fade and you have a token support player). No problems.
Marine side, there are two hurdles. First, you don't get to choose your weapons (generally), and secondly you need to be ready to make the switch from grunt to Comm. Comm, in a way, also gives you unique observations on the Aliens. I may go so far as to say that a Comm learns more about how to play Aliens than how to play Marines.
Now, people coming in from an FPS game are going to be fine with Aliens. People coming from an RTS are going to be relatively fine with being Comm. Problems exist when people try to make their class fit them rather than making themselves fit it.
You may be asking - what does this have to do with skill balancing? Firstly that it is hard, if not impossible, to create some sort of automated optimised matchup. Individual skill does not directly equate to team skill. Some players cant adjust to having to rely extensively on another player. A good gorge can be a lousy fade, a good comm a hopeless marine. If you're going to automate the process, you'd have to take in an insane number of variables to account for every possible statistic, and then factor in how that impacts on team balance. Not to mention how you expect to graph it all up - would anyone really want to be responsible for coding something that records each kill, the weapon used, the skill level of the opponent and the avg skill of the opposing team offset against your team's skill and your personal skill?
A player ranked high for shotgun skills is going to end up taking a beating in the ranks if his comm doesnt drop shotties - thats just one example. While optimatching COULD be done, it would be very hard to suggest HOW exactly it should be done. "Teams should be balanced" is open to an awful lot of interpretation, and an automated system would be quickly overloaded by having to account for (fade skill x gorge skill) x kills/weapon assuming ~ ping.. plus a separate system for (cumulative comm skills x avg weapon dropped on server) x kills/avg weapon assuming ~ meds and ping. Madness. For the Marines, a good team player relies on his Comm to keep him alive. A good Alien team relies on competent lerks and gorges to support their big hitters.
I do concede that if Combat was the only game, then yes you could simply take your total XP gained over number of games and compare with the Server's avg XP gained per game for a fair guesstimate of how badly you'll do (an oversimplication that is still flawed, as XP relies on kills and if everyone has the same skill then the kills will be roughly equal regardless of whether the entire server is CAL material or pubbers, but I digress) - but NS is not just about Combat, and Combat does not directly correlate to skills in Classic.
So, do we rely on Admins to do the job? Yes, and no. Admins are good to have, very good to have, but it requires a person giving up their time in order to police the server. In today's age, that is simply unreasonable. If you want to have a popular game, you have to be able to let it run on a server without having to shepherd the players. Admins will only appear in other games when you have severe cheating problems or serial griefers. Not for map changes, not for balance.
What does that leave? The players themselves. As Firewater and others have pointed out with their posts, the best servers had communities around them. Hamptons, Armslab, Lunixmonster, Tactical Gamer, OldF, and more. Now, not every player liked every server, but they had their regulars, their reserved slots, and patrons could be assured of a good time.
NS is a team game, it requires people to work together, and working together requires communication and knowledge of your fellow players' abilities. This makes community a necessity.
Furthermore, any player should know roughly how good or how bad they are, and should certainly have an understanding of GOOD CONDUCT. If you're an unstoppable fade player and you find matches too easy, then why not try another class? If you keep dominating a certain server, why not move on to another? If you're at the opposite end of the scale, have you considered practicing against bots? A newbie player back in the day would have learned very quickly that he was on the wrong server if he stumbled into Hamptons. Not that other players would be rude, but when you die 20 times straight then you should twig on to the fact that you're being outclassed.... Likewise, if you're dominating a server and spoiling the fun, you should be smart enough to know that its time to move on.
In a summary, how to balance skill on a server? Put it in the hands of the players. Let the community self regulate. Kickvotes, mute, and mapvotes can handle the most pressing issues, which means you need only call in admins to deal with serial griefers (stackers that rig votes, for one). Its the only sure solution, and is proven to work. Give your regular players reserved slots, encourage them to keep coming back, and people will naturally find their niche.
NS problem right now is likely due to the lack of server communities that encourage self-regulation. Nothing good comes of situations where players of vastly different skill are forced to play together, and what we need are more options for players to segregate themselves.
Just my opinion, of course.